Related
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 2 years ago.
The community reviewed whether to reopen this question 8 months ago and left it closed:
Original close reason(s) were not resolved
Improve this question
I tried to write code to solve the standard Integer Partition problem (Wikipedia). The code I wrote was a mess. I need an elegant solution to solve the problem, because I want to improve my coding style. This is not a homework question.
A smaller and faster than Nolen's function:
def partitions(n, I=1):
yield (n,)
for i in range(I, n//2 + 1):
for p in partitions(n-i, i):
yield (i,) + p
Let's compare them:
In [10]: %timeit -n 10 r0 = nolen(20)
1.37 s ± 28.7 ms per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 10 loops each)
In [11]: %timeit -n 10 r1 = list(partitions(20))
979 µs ± 82.9 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 10 loops each)
In [13]: sorted(map(sorted, r0)) == sorted(map(sorted, r1))
Out[14]: True
Looks like it's 1370 times faster for n = 20.
Anyway, it's still far from accel_asc:
def accel_asc(n):
a = [0 for i in range(n + 1)]
k = 1
y = n - 1
while k != 0:
x = a[k - 1] + 1
k -= 1
while 2 * x <= y:
a[k] = x
y -= x
k += 1
l = k + 1
while x <= y:
a[k] = x
a[l] = y
yield a[:k + 2]
x += 1
y -= 1
a[k] = x + y
y = x + y - 1
yield a[:k + 1]
It's not only slower, but requires much more memory (but apparently is much easier to remember):
In [18]: %timeit -n 5 r2 = list(accel_asc(50))
114 ms ± 1.04 ms per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 5 loops each)
In [19]: %timeit -n 5 r3 = list(partitions(50))
527 ms ± 8.86 ms per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 5 loops each)
In [24]: sorted(map(sorted, r2)) == sorted(map(sorted, r3))
Out[24]: True
You can find other versions on ActiveState: Generator For Integer Partitions (Python Recipe).
I use Python 3.6.1 and IPython 6.0.0.
While this answer is fine, I'd recommend skovorodkin's answer.
>>> def partition(number):
... answer = set()
... answer.add((number, ))
... for x in range(1, number):
... for y in partition(number - x):
... answer.add(tuple(sorted((x, ) + y)))
... return answer
...
>>> partition(4)
set([(1, 3), (2, 2), (1, 1, 2), (1, 1, 1, 1), (4,)])
If you want all permutations(ie (1, 3) and (3, 1)) change answer.add(tuple(sorted((x, ) + y)) to answer.add((x, ) + y)
I've compared the solution with perfplot (a little project of mine for such purposes) and found that Nolen's top-voted answer is also the slowest.
Both answers supplied by skovorodkin are much faster. (Note the log-scale.)
To to generate the plot:
import perfplot
import collections
def nolen(number):
answer = set()
answer.add((number,))
for x in range(1, number):
for y in nolen(number - x):
answer.add(tuple(sorted((x,) + y)))
return answer
def skovorodkin(n):
return set(skovorodkin_yield(n))
def skovorodkin_yield(n, I=1):
yield (n,)
for i in range(I, n // 2 + 1):
for p in skovorodkin_yield(n - i, i):
yield (i,) + p
def accel_asc(n):
return set(accel_asc_yield(n))
def accel_asc_yield(n):
a = [0 for i in range(n + 1)]
k = 1
y = n - 1
while k != 0:
x = a[k - 1] + 1
k -= 1
while 2 * x <= y:
a[k] = x
y -= x
k += 1
l = k + 1
while x <= y:
a[k] = x
a[l] = y
yield tuple(a[: k + 2])
x += 1
y -= 1
a[k] = x + y
y = x + y - 1
yield tuple(a[: k + 1])
def mct(n):
partitions_of = []
partitions_of.append([()])
partitions_of.append([(1,)])
for num in range(2, n + 1):
ptitions = set()
for i in range(num):
for partition in partitions_of[i]:
ptitions.add(tuple(sorted((num - i,) + partition)))
partitions_of.append(list(ptitions))
return partitions_of[n]
perfplot.show(
setup=lambda n: n,
kernels=[nolen, mct, skovorodkin, accel_asc],
n_range=range(1, 17),
logy=True,
# https://stackoverflow.com/a/7829388/353337
equality_check=lambda a, b: collections.Counter(set(a))
== collections.Counter(set(b)),
xlabel="n",
)
I needed to solve a similar problem, namely the partition of an integer n into d nonnegative parts, with permutations. For this, there's a simple recursive solution (see here):
def partition(n, d, depth=0):
if d == depth:
return [[]]
return [
item + [i]
for i in range(n+1)
for item in partition(n-i, d, depth=depth+1)
]
# extend with n-sum(entries)
n = 5
d = 3
lst = [[n-sum(p)] + p for p in partition(n, d-1)]
print(lst)
Output:
[
[5, 0, 0], [4, 1, 0], [3, 2, 0], [2, 3, 0], [1, 4, 0],
[0, 5, 0], [4, 0, 1], [3, 1, 1], [2, 2, 1], [1, 3, 1],
[0, 4, 1], [3, 0, 2], [2, 1, 2], [1, 2, 2], [0, 3, 2],
[2, 0, 3], [1, 1, 3], [0, 2, 3], [1, 0, 4], [0, 1, 4],
[0, 0, 5]
]
I'm a bit late to the game, but I can offer a contribution which might qualify as more elegant in a few senses:
def partitions(n, m = None):
"""Partition n with a maximum part size of m. Yield non-increasing
lists in decreasing lexicographic order. The default for m is
effectively n, so the second argument is not needed to create the
generator unless you do want to limit part sizes.
"""
if m is None or m >= n: yield [n]
for f in range(n-1 if (m is None or m >= n) else m, 0, -1):
for p in partitions(n-f, f): yield [f] + p
Only 3 lines of code. Yields them in lexicographic order. Optionally allows imposition of a maximum part size.
I also have a variation on the above for partitions with a given number of parts:
def sized_partitions(n, k, m = None):
"""Partition n into k parts with a max part of m.
Yield non-increasing lists. m not needed to create generator.
"""
if k == 1:
yield [n]
return
for f in range(n-k+1 if (m is None or m > n-k+1) else m, (n-1)//k, -1):
for p in sized_partitions(n-f, k-1, f): yield [f] + p
After composing the above, I ran across a solution I had created almost 5 years ago, but which I had forgotten about. Besides a maximum part size, this one offers the additional feature that you can impose a maximum length (as opposed to a specific length). FWIW:
def partitions(sum, max_val=100000, max_len=100000):
""" generator of partitions of sum with limits on values and length """
# Yields lists in decreasing lexicographical order.
# To get any length, omit 3rd arg.
# To get all partitions, omit 2nd and 3rd args.
if sum <= max_val: # Can start with a singleton.
yield [sum]
# Must have first*max_len >= sum; i.e. first >= sum/max_len.
for first in range(min(sum-1, max_val), max(0, (sum-1)//max_len), -1):
for p in partitions(sum-first, first, max_len-1):
yield [first]+p
Much quicker than the accepted response and not bad looking, either. The accepted response does lots of the same work multiple times because it calculates the partitions for lower integers multiple times. For example, when n=22 the difference is 12.7 seconds against 0.0467 seconds.
def partitions_dp(n):
partitions_of = []
partitions_of.append([()])
partitions_of.append([(1,)])
for num in range(2, n+1):
ptitions = set()
for i in range(num):
for partition in partitions_of[i]:
ptitions.add(tuple(sorted((num - i, ) + partition)))
partitions_of.append(list(ptitions))
return partitions_of[n]
The code is essentially the same except we save the partitions of smaller integers so we don't have to calculate them again and again.
Here is a recursive function, which uses a stack in which we store the numbers of the partitions in increasing order.
It is fast enough and very intuitive.
# get the partitions of an integer
Stack = []
def Partitions(remainder, start_number = 1):
if remainder == 0:
print(" + ".join(Stack))
else:
for nb_to_add in range(start_number, remainder+1):
Stack.append(str(nb_to_add))
Partitions(remainder - nb_to_add, nb_to_add)
Stack.pop()
When the stack is full (the sum of the elements of the stack then corresponds to the number we want the partitions), we print it,
remove its last value and test the next possible value to be stored in the stack. When all the next values have been tested, we pop the last value of the stack again and we go back to the last calling function.
Here is an example of the output (with 8):
Partitions(8)
1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1
1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 2
1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 3
1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 2 + 2
1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 4
1 + 1 + 1 + 2 + 3
1 + 1 + 1 + 5
1 + 1 + 2 + 2 + 2
1 + 1 + 2 + 4
1 + 1 + 3 + 3
1 + 1 + 6
1 + 2 + 2 + 3
1 + 2 + 5
1 + 3 + 4
1 + 7
2 + 2 + 2 + 2
2 + 2 + 4
2 + 3 + 3
2 + 6
3 + 5
4 + 4
8
The structure of the recursive function is easy to understand and is illustrated below (for the integer 31):
remainder corresponds to the value of the remaining number we want a partition (31 and 21 in the example above).
start_number corresponds to the first number of the partition, its default value is one (1 and 5 in the example above).
If we wanted to return the result in a list and get the number of partitions, we could do this:
def Partitions2_main(nb):
global counter, PartitionList, Stack
counter, PartitionList, Stack = 0, [], []
Partitions2(nb)
return PartitionList, counter
def Partitions2(remainder, start_number = 1):
global counter, PartitionList, Stack
if remainder == 0:
PartitionList.append(list(Stack))
counter += 1
else:
for nb_to_add in range(start_number, remainder+1):
Stack.append(nb_to_add)
Partitions2(remainder - nb_to_add, nb_to_add)
Stack.pop()
Last, a big advantage of the function Partitions shown above is that it adapts very easily to find all the compositions of a natural number (two compositions can have the same set of numbers, but the order differs in this case):
we just have to drop the variable start_number and set it to 1 in the for loop.
# get the compositions of an integer
Stack = []
def Compositions(remainder):
if remainder == 0:
print(" + ".join(Stack))
else:
for nb_to_add in range(1, remainder+1):
Stack.append(str(nb_to_add))
Compositions(remainder - nb_to_add)
Stack.pop()
Example of output:
Compositions(4)
1 + 1 + 1 + 1
1 + 1 + 2
1 + 2 + 1
1 + 3
2 + 1 + 1
2 + 2
3 + 1
4
I think the recipe here may qualify as being elegant. It's lean (20 lines long), fast and based upon Kelleher and O'Sullivan's work which is referenced therein:
def aP(n):
"""Generate partitions of n as ordered lists in ascending
lexicographical order.
This highly efficient routine is based on the delightful
work of Kelleher and O'Sullivan.
Examples
========
>>> for i in aP(6): i
...
[1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1]
[1, 1, 1, 1, 2]
[1, 1, 1, 3]
[1, 1, 2, 2]
[1, 1, 4]
[1, 2, 3]
[1, 5]
[2, 2, 2]
[2, 4]
[3, 3]
[6]
>>> for i in aP(0): i
...
[]
References
==========
.. [1] Generating Integer Partitions, [online],
Available: http://jeromekelleher.net/generating-integer-partitions.html
.. [2] Jerome Kelleher and Barry O'Sullivan, "Generating All
Partitions: A Comparison Of Two Encodings", [online],
Available: http://arxiv.org/pdf/0909.2331v2.pdf
"""
# The list `a`'s leading elements contain the partition in which
# y is the biggest element and x is either the same as y or the
# 2nd largest element; v and w are adjacent element indices
# to which x and y are being assigned, respectively.
a = [1]*n
y = -1
v = n
while v > 0:
v -= 1
x = a[v] + 1
while y >= 2 * x:
a[v] = x
y -= x
v += 1
w = v + 1
while x <= y:
a[v] = x
a[w] = y
yield a[:w + 1]
x += 1
y -= 1
a[v] = x + y
y = a[v] - 1
yield a[:w]
# -*- coding: utf-8 -*-
import timeit
ncache = 0
cache = {}
def partition(number):
global cache, ncache
answer = {(number,), }
if number in cache:
ncache += 1
return cache[number]
if number == 1:
cache[number] = answer
return answer
for x in range(1, number):
for y in partition(number - x):
answer.add(tuple(sorted((x, ) + y)))
cache[number] = answer
return answer
print('To 5:')
for r in sorted(partition(5))[::-1]:
print('\t' + ' + '.join(str(i) for i in r))
print(
'Time: {}\nCache used:{}'.format(
timeit.timeit(
"print('To 30: {} possibilities'.format(len(partition(30))))",
setup="from __main__ import partition",
number=1
), ncache
)
)
or https://gist.github.com/sxslex/dd15b13b28c40e695f1e227a200d1646
I don't know if my code is the most elegant, but I've had to solve this many times for research purposes. If you modify the
sub_nums
variable you can restrict what numbers are used in the partition.
def make_partitions(number):
out = []
tmp = []
sub_nums = range(1,number+1)
for num in sub_nums:
if num<=number:
tmp.append([num])
for elm in tmp:
sum_elm = sum(elm)
if sum_elm == number:
out.append(elm)
else:
for num in sub_nums:
if sum_elm + num <= number:
L = [i for i in elm]
L.append(num)
tmp.append(L)
return out
F(x,n) = \union_(i>=n) { {i}U g| g in F(x-i,i) }
Just implement this recursion. F(x,n) is the set of all sets that sum to x and their elements are greater than or equal to n.
I have a sequence like: 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512
now I have a number
a = 5
then
b = 8
means b is the closest higher digit according to a from the sequence.
Now a = x then b = ?
I offer two solutions. The first is probably the most obvious and intuitive. The second is more advanced but more efficient.
Simple and intuitive
Here is a simple intuitive approach. The following function returns the closest number greater than or equal to the argument num in the sequence 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, .... The function first assigns n to 4. Then, so long as n is strictly less than the argument num, n is assigned the next value in the sequence and the comparison is made again. Once n is greater than or equal to num, we return n.
def seq_1(num):
"""Returns the closest number greater than or equal to num in the
sequence 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, ...
"""
n = 4
while (n < num):
n *= 2
return n
More efficient, but more advanced
A less intuitive approach but more efficient is obtained by first recognizing that the sequence is defined by
a_0 = 4;
a_n = 2 * a_(n-1) for n in {1, 2, 3, ...}.
Notice how a_(n-1) = 2 * a_(n-2). Substituting this into a_n = 2 * a_(n-1), we obtain a_n = (2 ** 2) * a_(n-2). More generally, through repeated substitutions, we obtain a_n = (2 ** n) * a_(0) or a_n = (2 ** n) * 4 or
a_n = (2 ** (n + 2)) for n in {0, 1, 2, 3, ...}
So the first element a_0 is 2 ** 2 = 4, the second element a_1 is 2 ** 3 = 8, the third is 2 ** 4 = 16 and so on.
This suggests the solution:
def seq_2(num):
"""Returns the closest number greater than or equal to num in the
sequence 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, ...
"""
if num < 4:
return 4
return 1 << (num - 1).bit_length()
if num is less than 4 we return 4.
1 << (num - 1).bit_length() evaluates to the closest power of 2 greater than or equal to num.
This requires the following knowledge:
2 is 10 in binary, 2 ** 2 is 100 in binary, 2 ** 3 is 1000 in binary, ..., 2 ** n in binary is 1 followed by n zeros.
bit_length() is a method defined for Python ints that "[r]eturn[s] the number of bits necessary to represent an integer in binary" (docs).
i << j shifts i left by j bits. For example
In [1]: bin(1)
Out[1]: '0b1' # 2 to the power of 0.
In [2]: bin(1 << 5)
Out[2]: '0b100000' # 2 to the power of 5.
Timings
# seq_1(420_000)
657 ns ± 0.55 ns per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 1,000,000 loops each)
# seq_2(420_000)
116 ns ± 0.416 ns per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 10,000,000 loops each)
Providing that your sequence is in ascending sorted order then:
seq = [4,8,16,32,64,128,256,512]
def get_next_highest(seq, a):
b = None
for i in range(len(seq)-1, -1, -1):
if seq[i] <= a:
break
b = seq[i]
return b
print(get_next_highest(seq, 5))
If you have a sorted sequence you can use bisect from Pythons standard library.
import bisect
data = [4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512]
a = 5
index = bisect.bisect(data, a)
b = data[index]
You will have to add a boundary check if you expect a to have a value larger than the last element of the list.
This code demonstrates how it works with random values.
import bisect
import random
def get_next_highest(data, value):
try:
return data[bisect.bisect(data, value)]
except IndexError:
return None
def main():
data = sorted([random.randint(1, 100) for _ in range(10)])
a = 50
b = get_next_highest(data, a)
print(data, a, b)
if __name__ == '__main__':
main()
I'm learning Python and I'm trying to come up with a for loop (or any other method) that can return multiples of 100 but rounded to the nearest thousand, here's what I have right now:
huneds = [h * 100 for h in range(1,50)]
for r in huneds:
if r % 3 == float:
print(r)
else:
break
The built-in round() function will accept a negative number that you can use to round to thousands:
for r in huneds:
print(round(r, -3))
Which prints:
0
0
0
0
0
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
1000
2000
...
4000
4000
5000
5000
5000
5000
You can see use
for n in range(0,2500,100):
print(n, ' -> ',1000 * round(n / 1000))
For any number m, m is a multiple of n if the remainder of n / m is 0. I.e. n % m == 0 or in your case; r % 100 == 0, as the modulus operator (%) returns the remainder of a division. Use:
for r in huneds:
if r % 100 == 0:
print(r)
But every number is already a multiple of 100, as you multiplied all of them by 100.
You may be after something like:
# Range uses (start, stop, step) params
# print(list(range(0, 200, 10))) --> [0, 10, 20, ... 170, 180, 190]
for r in range(0, 200, 10):
if r % 100 == 0 and r != 0:
print(r)
Outputs
100
But you would like to round to the nearest 1000. The round() function can do that.
for r in range(0, 2000, 10):
if r % 100 == 0 and r != 0:
print(f"{r} | {round(r, -3)}")
100 | 0
200 | 0
300 | 0
400 | 0
500 | 0
600 | 1000
700 | 1000
800 | 1000
...
The f string does the same as r + ' | ' + round(r, -3)
This shows the number that is a multiple of 100 which is r, and then it rounded to the nearest 1000
round()'s second argument is the amount of digits to round too, as we are going to the nearest 1000, we use -3 as you are going on the left side of the decimal
I suggest having a read of:
https://www.w3schools.com/python/ref_func_range.asp
And I highly reccomend: this site (python principles) for learning python. Pro membership is currently free
Simply do this,
list(map(lambda x: round(x/1000) * 1000, huneds))
It'll return you a list of rounded values for all the items of the list huneds.
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 2 years ago.
The community reviewed whether to reopen this question 8 months ago and left it closed:
Original close reason(s) were not resolved
Improve this question
I tried to write code to solve the standard Integer Partition problem (Wikipedia). The code I wrote was a mess. I need an elegant solution to solve the problem, because I want to improve my coding style. This is not a homework question.
A smaller and faster than Nolen's function:
def partitions(n, I=1):
yield (n,)
for i in range(I, n//2 + 1):
for p in partitions(n-i, i):
yield (i,) + p
Let's compare them:
In [10]: %timeit -n 10 r0 = nolen(20)
1.37 s ± 28.7 ms per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 10 loops each)
In [11]: %timeit -n 10 r1 = list(partitions(20))
979 µs ± 82.9 µs per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 10 loops each)
In [13]: sorted(map(sorted, r0)) == sorted(map(sorted, r1))
Out[14]: True
Looks like it's 1370 times faster for n = 20.
Anyway, it's still far from accel_asc:
def accel_asc(n):
a = [0 for i in range(n + 1)]
k = 1
y = n - 1
while k != 0:
x = a[k - 1] + 1
k -= 1
while 2 * x <= y:
a[k] = x
y -= x
k += 1
l = k + 1
while x <= y:
a[k] = x
a[l] = y
yield a[:k + 2]
x += 1
y -= 1
a[k] = x + y
y = x + y - 1
yield a[:k + 1]
It's not only slower, but requires much more memory (but apparently is much easier to remember):
In [18]: %timeit -n 5 r2 = list(accel_asc(50))
114 ms ± 1.04 ms per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 5 loops each)
In [19]: %timeit -n 5 r3 = list(partitions(50))
527 ms ± 8.86 ms per loop (mean ± std. dev. of 7 runs, 5 loops each)
In [24]: sorted(map(sorted, r2)) == sorted(map(sorted, r3))
Out[24]: True
You can find other versions on ActiveState: Generator For Integer Partitions (Python Recipe).
I use Python 3.6.1 and IPython 6.0.0.
While this answer is fine, I'd recommend skovorodkin's answer.
>>> def partition(number):
... answer = set()
... answer.add((number, ))
... for x in range(1, number):
... for y in partition(number - x):
... answer.add(tuple(sorted((x, ) + y)))
... return answer
...
>>> partition(4)
set([(1, 3), (2, 2), (1, 1, 2), (1, 1, 1, 1), (4,)])
If you want all permutations(ie (1, 3) and (3, 1)) change answer.add(tuple(sorted((x, ) + y)) to answer.add((x, ) + y)
I've compared the solution with perfplot (a little project of mine for such purposes) and found that Nolen's top-voted answer is also the slowest.
Both answers supplied by skovorodkin are much faster. (Note the log-scale.)
To to generate the plot:
import perfplot
import collections
def nolen(number):
answer = set()
answer.add((number,))
for x in range(1, number):
for y in nolen(number - x):
answer.add(tuple(sorted((x,) + y)))
return answer
def skovorodkin(n):
return set(skovorodkin_yield(n))
def skovorodkin_yield(n, I=1):
yield (n,)
for i in range(I, n // 2 + 1):
for p in skovorodkin_yield(n - i, i):
yield (i,) + p
def accel_asc(n):
return set(accel_asc_yield(n))
def accel_asc_yield(n):
a = [0 for i in range(n + 1)]
k = 1
y = n - 1
while k != 0:
x = a[k - 1] + 1
k -= 1
while 2 * x <= y:
a[k] = x
y -= x
k += 1
l = k + 1
while x <= y:
a[k] = x
a[l] = y
yield tuple(a[: k + 2])
x += 1
y -= 1
a[k] = x + y
y = x + y - 1
yield tuple(a[: k + 1])
def mct(n):
partitions_of = []
partitions_of.append([()])
partitions_of.append([(1,)])
for num in range(2, n + 1):
ptitions = set()
for i in range(num):
for partition in partitions_of[i]:
ptitions.add(tuple(sorted((num - i,) + partition)))
partitions_of.append(list(ptitions))
return partitions_of[n]
perfplot.show(
setup=lambda n: n,
kernels=[nolen, mct, skovorodkin, accel_asc],
n_range=range(1, 17),
logy=True,
# https://stackoverflow.com/a/7829388/353337
equality_check=lambda a, b: collections.Counter(set(a))
== collections.Counter(set(b)),
xlabel="n",
)
I needed to solve a similar problem, namely the partition of an integer n into d nonnegative parts, with permutations. For this, there's a simple recursive solution (see here):
def partition(n, d, depth=0):
if d == depth:
return [[]]
return [
item + [i]
for i in range(n+1)
for item in partition(n-i, d, depth=depth+1)
]
# extend with n-sum(entries)
n = 5
d = 3
lst = [[n-sum(p)] + p for p in partition(n, d-1)]
print(lst)
Output:
[
[5, 0, 0], [4, 1, 0], [3, 2, 0], [2, 3, 0], [1, 4, 0],
[0, 5, 0], [4, 0, 1], [3, 1, 1], [2, 2, 1], [1, 3, 1],
[0, 4, 1], [3, 0, 2], [2, 1, 2], [1, 2, 2], [0, 3, 2],
[2, 0, 3], [1, 1, 3], [0, 2, 3], [1, 0, 4], [0, 1, 4],
[0, 0, 5]
]
I'm a bit late to the game, but I can offer a contribution which might qualify as more elegant in a few senses:
def partitions(n, m = None):
"""Partition n with a maximum part size of m. Yield non-increasing
lists in decreasing lexicographic order. The default for m is
effectively n, so the second argument is not needed to create the
generator unless you do want to limit part sizes.
"""
if m is None or m >= n: yield [n]
for f in range(n-1 if (m is None or m >= n) else m, 0, -1):
for p in partitions(n-f, f): yield [f] + p
Only 3 lines of code. Yields them in lexicographic order. Optionally allows imposition of a maximum part size.
I also have a variation on the above for partitions with a given number of parts:
def sized_partitions(n, k, m = None):
"""Partition n into k parts with a max part of m.
Yield non-increasing lists. m not needed to create generator.
"""
if k == 1:
yield [n]
return
for f in range(n-k+1 if (m is None or m > n-k+1) else m, (n-1)//k, -1):
for p in sized_partitions(n-f, k-1, f): yield [f] + p
After composing the above, I ran across a solution I had created almost 5 years ago, but which I had forgotten about. Besides a maximum part size, this one offers the additional feature that you can impose a maximum length (as opposed to a specific length). FWIW:
def partitions(sum, max_val=100000, max_len=100000):
""" generator of partitions of sum with limits on values and length """
# Yields lists in decreasing lexicographical order.
# To get any length, omit 3rd arg.
# To get all partitions, omit 2nd and 3rd args.
if sum <= max_val: # Can start with a singleton.
yield [sum]
# Must have first*max_len >= sum; i.e. first >= sum/max_len.
for first in range(min(sum-1, max_val), max(0, (sum-1)//max_len), -1):
for p in partitions(sum-first, first, max_len-1):
yield [first]+p
Much quicker than the accepted response and not bad looking, either. The accepted response does lots of the same work multiple times because it calculates the partitions for lower integers multiple times. For example, when n=22 the difference is 12.7 seconds against 0.0467 seconds.
def partitions_dp(n):
partitions_of = []
partitions_of.append([()])
partitions_of.append([(1,)])
for num in range(2, n+1):
ptitions = set()
for i in range(num):
for partition in partitions_of[i]:
ptitions.add(tuple(sorted((num - i, ) + partition)))
partitions_of.append(list(ptitions))
return partitions_of[n]
The code is essentially the same except we save the partitions of smaller integers so we don't have to calculate them again and again.
Here is a recursive function, which uses a stack in which we store the numbers of the partitions in increasing order.
It is fast enough and very intuitive.
# get the partitions of an integer
Stack = []
def Partitions(remainder, start_number = 1):
if remainder == 0:
print(" + ".join(Stack))
else:
for nb_to_add in range(start_number, remainder+1):
Stack.append(str(nb_to_add))
Partitions(remainder - nb_to_add, nb_to_add)
Stack.pop()
When the stack is full (the sum of the elements of the stack then corresponds to the number we want the partitions), we print it,
remove its last value and test the next possible value to be stored in the stack. When all the next values have been tested, we pop the last value of the stack again and we go back to the last calling function.
Here is an example of the output (with 8):
Partitions(8)
1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1
1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 2
1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 3
1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 2 + 2
1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 4
1 + 1 + 1 + 2 + 3
1 + 1 + 1 + 5
1 + 1 + 2 + 2 + 2
1 + 1 + 2 + 4
1 + 1 + 3 + 3
1 + 1 + 6
1 + 2 + 2 + 3
1 + 2 + 5
1 + 3 + 4
1 + 7
2 + 2 + 2 + 2
2 + 2 + 4
2 + 3 + 3
2 + 6
3 + 5
4 + 4
8
The structure of the recursive function is easy to understand and is illustrated below (for the integer 31):
remainder corresponds to the value of the remaining number we want a partition (31 and 21 in the example above).
start_number corresponds to the first number of the partition, its default value is one (1 and 5 in the example above).
If we wanted to return the result in a list and get the number of partitions, we could do this:
def Partitions2_main(nb):
global counter, PartitionList, Stack
counter, PartitionList, Stack = 0, [], []
Partitions2(nb)
return PartitionList, counter
def Partitions2(remainder, start_number = 1):
global counter, PartitionList, Stack
if remainder == 0:
PartitionList.append(list(Stack))
counter += 1
else:
for nb_to_add in range(start_number, remainder+1):
Stack.append(nb_to_add)
Partitions2(remainder - nb_to_add, nb_to_add)
Stack.pop()
Last, a big advantage of the function Partitions shown above is that it adapts very easily to find all the compositions of a natural number (two compositions can have the same set of numbers, but the order differs in this case):
we just have to drop the variable start_number and set it to 1 in the for loop.
# get the compositions of an integer
Stack = []
def Compositions(remainder):
if remainder == 0:
print(" + ".join(Stack))
else:
for nb_to_add in range(1, remainder+1):
Stack.append(str(nb_to_add))
Compositions(remainder - nb_to_add)
Stack.pop()
Example of output:
Compositions(4)
1 + 1 + 1 + 1
1 + 1 + 2
1 + 2 + 1
1 + 3
2 + 1 + 1
2 + 2
3 + 1
4
I think the recipe here may qualify as being elegant. It's lean (20 lines long), fast and based upon Kelleher and O'Sullivan's work which is referenced therein:
def aP(n):
"""Generate partitions of n as ordered lists in ascending
lexicographical order.
This highly efficient routine is based on the delightful
work of Kelleher and O'Sullivan.
Examples
========
>>> for i in aP(6): i
...
[1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1]
[1, 1, 1, 1, 2]
[1, 1, 1, 3]
[1, 1, 2, 2]
[1, 1, 4]
[1, 2, 3]
[1, 5]
[2, 2, 2]
[2, 4]
[3, 3]
[6]
>>> for i in aP(0): i
...
[]
References
==========
.. [1] Generating Integer Partitions, [online],
Available: http://jeromekelleher.net/generating-integer-partitions.html
.. [2] Jerome Kelleher and Barry O'Sullivan, "Generating All
Partitions: A Comparison Of Two Encodings", [online],
Available: http://arxiv.org/pdf/0909.2331v2.pdf
"""
# The list `a`'s leading elements contain the partition in which
# y is the biggest element and x is either the same as y or the
# 2nd largest element; v and w are adjacent element indices
# to which x and y are being assigned, respectively.
a = [1]*n
y = -1
v = n
while v > 0:
v -= 1
x = a[v] + 1
while y >= 2 * x:
a[v] = x
y -= x
v += 1
w = v + 1
while x <= y:
a[v] = x
a[w] = y
yield a[:w + 1]
x += 1
y -= 1
a[v] = x + y
y = a[v] - 1
yield a[:w]
# -*- coding: utf-8 -*-
import timeit
ncache = 0
cache = {}
def partition(number):
global cache, ncache
answer = {(number,), }
if number in cache:
ncache += 1
return cache[number]
if number == 1:
cache[number] = answer
return answer
for x in range(1, number):
for y in partition(number - x):
answer.add(tuple(sorted((x, ) + y)))
cache[number] = answer
return answer
print('To 5:')
for r in sorted(partition(5))[::-1]:
print('\t' + ' + '.join(str(i) for i in r))
print(
'Time: {}\nCache used:{}'.format(
timeit.timeit(
"print('To 30: {} possibilities'.format(len(partition(30))))",
setup="from __main__ import partition",
number=1
), ncache
)
)
or https://gist.github.com/sxslex/dd15b13b28c40e695f1e227a200d1646
I don't know if my code is the most elegant, but I've had to solve this many times for research purposes. If you modify the
sub_nums
variable you can restrict what numbers are used in the partition.
def make_partitions(number):
out = []
tmp = []
sub_nums = range(1,number+1)
for num in sub_nums:
if num<=number:
tmp.append([num])
for elm in tmp:
sum_elm = sum(elm)
if sum_elm == number:
out.append(elm)
else:
for num in sub_nums:
if sum_elm + num <= number:
L = [i for i in elm]
L.append(num)
tmp.append(L)
return out
F(x,n) = \union_(i>=n) { {i}U g| g in F(x-i,i) }
Just implement this recursion. F(x,n) is the set of all sets that sum to x and their elements are greater than or equal to n.
I want to print all the prime numbers from 1 to 10 but nothing gets printed when i run the program
c=0
nums = []
k=0
for a in range(1,11):
for b in range(1,11):
if a%b==0:
c = c+1
if c==2:
nums.append(a)
k = k+1
for d in nums:
print nums[d]
I can't figure out why you are using k
and your c should reset in "a" loop and out of "b" loop
code like this:
nums = []
for a in range(1, 11):
c = 0
for b in range(1, 11):
if a % b == 0:
c = c + 1
if c == 2:
nums.append(a)
print nums
You should reset c to zero before the beginning of each inner loop:
nums = []
for a in range(1,11):
c = 0
for b in range(1,11):
if a%b==0:
c = c+1
if c==2:
nums.append(a)
for d in nums:
print d
Additionally, you should use print d, since the for-loop already gives every element in nums.
Using a list comprehension is generally faster and considered more pythonic than using a for-loop.
There are many different ways of calculating prime numbers. Here are some of them.
Here is your original algorithm, with some improvements;
def prime_list(num):
"""Returns a list of all prime numbers up to and including num.
:num: highest number to test
:returns: a list of primes up to num
"""
if num < 3:
raise ValueError('this function only accepts arguments > 2')
candidates = range(3, num+1, 2)
L = [c for c in candidates if all(c % p != 0 for p in range(3, c, 2))]
return [2] + L
For primes >2, they must be odd numbers. So candidates should contain only odd numbers.
For an odd number c to be prime, one must ensure that c modulo all previous odd numbers (p) must be non-zero.
Lastly, 2 is also prime.
A further improvement is to restrict p up to sqrt(c):
import math
def prime_list2(num):
if num < 3:
raise ValueError('this function only accepts arguments > 2')
candidates = range(3, num+1, 2)
L = [c for c in candidates if all(c % p != 0 for p in
range(3, int(math.sqrt(c))+1, 2))]
return [2] + L
Another implementation:
def prime_list3(num):
num += 1
candidates = range(3, num, 2)
results = [2]
while len(candidates):
t = candidates[0]
results.append(t)
candidates = [i for i in candidates if not i in range(t, num, t)]
return results
This starts off with a list of candidates that contains all odd numbers. Then is calculates a new list of candidates by removing the first number of the previous list and all all multiples of it.
Let's look at the speed of the algorithms.
For small numbers, the original prime_list is the fastest;
In [8]: %timeit prime_list(10)
100000 loops, best of 3: 8.68 µs per loop
In [9]: %timeit prime_list2(10)
100000 loops, best of 3: 10.9 µs per loop
In [10]: %timeit prime_list3(10)
100000 loops, best of 3: 8.96 µs per loop
For larger numbers, prime_list2 comes out the winner:
In [5]: %timeit prime_list(1000)
100 loops, best of 3: 8.28 ms per loop
In [6]: %timeit prime_list2(1000)
100 loops, best of 3: 2.46 ms per loop
In [7]: %timeit prime_list3(1000)
10 loops, best of 3: 23.5 ms per loop
In [11]: %timeit prime_list(10000)
1 loops, best of 3: 646 ms per loop
In [12]: %timeit prime_list2(10000)
10 loops, best of 3: 25.4 ms per loop
In [13]: %timeit prime_list3(10000)
1 loops, best of 3: 2.13 s per loop
I added two print statements to your code - first, under if a%b==0:, I added print a,b; and I print the final value of c after that loop. I get this output:
1 1
1
2 1
2 2
3
3 1
3 3
5
4 1
4 2
4 4
8
5 1
5 5
10
6 1
6 2
6 3
6 6
14
7 1
7 7
16
8 1
8 2
8 4
8 8
20
9 1
9 3
9 9
23
10 1
10 2
10 5
10 10
27
This tells you why you get nothing printed: after the b loop in a == 1, c is 1; after the same loop in the next iteration of the outer loop, c is now 3. So c==2 is never True when that test is made, so nums stays empty.
This also gives you a big hint as to what you need to do to fix it. c keeps increasing, but it should start counting afresh for each iteration of the outer loop - so, move your c=0 to be inside the outer for loop. You also need to change your final print loop to print d instead of print nums[d], or you will get another error. With those changes, your code looks like this:
nums = []
k=0
for a in range(1,11):
c=0
for b in range(1,11):
if a%b==0:
c = c+1
if c == 2:
nums.append(a)
k = k+1
for d in nums:
print d
and it prints
2
3
5
7
as expected.
Your c is not reset to zero inside the loop (the first loop). So set c=0 after line: for a in range(1,11):
I dont know what your k is for. Is it usefull for anything?
Printing the prime numbers dont do nums[d], print d. You are looping on the items not on the indices.
Your code has multiple issues - Every prime number is divisible by 1 so your checks will fail, you are printing nums[d] which is wrong, k is doing nothing, variable nomenclature is too obfuscated, you have unnecessary runs in for loop - you don't need to iterate for all values of b in range, it is sufficient to iterate over existing prime numbers and so on.
Here is how I would write it
primes = [2]
upper_limit = 1000 #find all primes < 1000
for candidate in range(2, upper_limit):
can_be_prime = True
for prime in primes:
if candidate % prime == 0:
can_be_prime = False
break
if can_be_prime:
primes.append(candidate)
print primes
This solution is a little neater:
nums = []
for a in range(2, 101):
for b in range(2, a):
if a % b == 0:
break
else:
nums.append(a)
print nums
Output:
[2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, 31, 37, 41, 43, 47, 53, 59, 61, 67, 71, 73, 79, 83, 89, 97]
Still, there is no point trying b > sqrt(a).
Try this:
nums = []
k=0
for a in range(2,11):
c=0
for b in range(1,11):
if a%b==0:
c = c+1
if c==2:
nums.append(a)
k = k+1
for d in nums:
print d
You will get
2
3
5
7
Note the code could be more efficient.